Spring of Nations – Revolutions of 1848 Revisited

Historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the public, but are well known to those in power at the time. Franklin D. Roosevelt who certainly saw many monumental events occur during his consecutive administrations has been quoted as saying: »In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way.«

If harmful events are planned, it follows that the people who were about to suffer through the scheduled event would act to prevent the event from occurring if they knew about it in advance. The people expect government to protect them from harmful events. But if the events still occur after the government officials had been expected to prevent them, the government officials have failed in their assigned duties. There are only two explanations as to why they failed:

The events overwhelmed them and could not have been prevented; or

The events were allowed to occur because the officials wanted them to occur.

It is difficult for the casual observer to believe that for instance World War 1 and World War 2 could not have been prevented, as humane people of conscience do not allow harmful events to occur.

If a planned and unwanted event is allowed to happen, those who planned the event would have to have acted in secret so as to prevent discovery of their plans by those who would be adversely affected. Planners working in secret to plan an event that the people do not wish to occur are, by definition, members of a conspiracy. Webster’s defines conspiracy as a “combination of people, working in secret, for an evil or unlawful purpose”. Not only must the conspirators work in secret, they must make every effort to ensure that their plans are not made public. The first task of a conspiracy, then, becomes that of convincing the people that the conspiracy itself does not exist.

This makes the task of uncovering the machinations of the conspiracy all the more difficult.

Looking at the Spring of Nations events, known in Europe as Revolutions of 1848 , we can notice this “movement” affected approximately 50 different countries. Taking apart each single one of them would require an overwhelming amount of research, so I looked only at the major European representatives – Austria, Germany and France – and made some very interesting findings you will be able to read below. There is still much to be researched and disclosed, however some already disclosed facts of this essay allow me to speculate and extrapolate my conclusion, that not only Austria, Germany and France suffered from manufactured events of alleged Revolutions of 1848, but so did the rest of all countries affected under the same cover story of uprising commoners.

Let us first discuss how the food crisis influenced business attitudes and investment behavior. During a negative food-supply shock, purchasing power is shifted from (net) food consumers to (net) food producers. As nutritional status declines toward—or even falls below—the subsistence level, demand becomes price-inelastic. This was the case in 1845–1847, when net food consumers, especially the urban lower and middle classes, were forced to reduce their rate of saving and run down their financial assets. While their savings fell, savings by net food producers presumably increased; but since food producers will have spent at least some of their windfall on purchases of other goods, the overall effect of the price increase on credit demand must have been positive. Under the rules of the various specie standards, by contrast, credit supply must have contracted. England, for instance, experienced a gold drain as grain imports soared and her trade balance turned negative, thus inducing a contraction of the money supply. A third factor in the tightening of credit was misspeculation. In mid-1847, as harvest forecasts switched from gloomy to optimistic and massive corn imports from Russia and the United States were reaching the markets, prices plummeted and many traders found themselves in desperate need of credit. This further increased interest rates all over Europe. In fact, the available data underestimate the strain put on borrowers, because most interest-rate series are regulated bank rates which were not always adjusted to market conditions. As a result, borrowers were often subject to credit rationing. (Helge Berger and Mark Spoerer, »Economic Crises and the European Revolutions of 1848«, p.305 [1])

The same authors conclude that the occurrence of an economic shock in the later 1840s was an important factor in triggering the 1848 revolutions across Europe, with Danmark as exception to this claim (ibid, p.319).

While institutions – namely, the presence or absence of a repressive political regime – add little to the explanation of revolutionary activity as such, we find that they did exert a significant influence on the form that this activity took. The revolutions of 1848 tended to be violent if the regime was repressive. The same authors conclude that the presence of repressive regimes did not trigger revolutionary events, but did help to shape them. (ibid, p.319)

Revolutionary agitators, pursuing their goals in an undemocratic and often repressive political environment, needed violence (or the credible threat of it) as a political instrument, and only the “crowd” could provide it.[2] The authors conclude that without the economic crisis of 1845–1848, which so obviously endangered the economic welfare of so many people and discredited the ancien régime so thoroughly, there would not have been the critical mass to support these new ideas. Hence no explanation of the European revolutions of 1848 should neglect short-term economic factors. (ibid, p.320)

Securing a larger money surplus to buy more non-food products meant for a lot of rural people selling more agricultural products to the market, reducing their self-provision (Komlos, 1998). This became an increasingly attractive strategy considering the relative rise of agricultural prices, and the relative fall in price of industrial products after 1830. Because of an enormous improvement in the terms of trade of the agricultural countryside, limited (or even zero) rises in productivity were accompanied by large increases in real income, but also by a fall in food consumption (Paping, 1995; Komlos, 1998). In this way relative price trends delivered more food from the countryside to the growing numbers of city dwellers. However, the price rises meant that the lower classes in the cities were unable – or unprepared – to buy much more food, even more so when the amount of bread one could buy for one’s daily wage did not rise or even fell. Economizing on food on the other hand brought new cheap products within reach. (Vanhaute, Paping, Ó Grada, »The European subsistence crisis of 1845-1850: a comparative perspective« [3])

Social unrest as a (political) protest of poor against rich only appeared in the aftermath of the crisis (e.g. forest riots in 1848). As for the Danish case, the study concludes that the political revolution of 1848 was triggered by matters other than food prices. (ibid, p. 28-29)

Social unrest resulting from the famine crisis was not related to national protest movements, but rooted in local and regional social relations. This is most clear in case of ‘classic’ market riots. A real wave of market disturbances surged over Europe in 1846-1847, with a top in spring (April, May, June) 1847, when grain prices peaked. It is striking that regions with market-oriented agriculture and a substantial number of wage labourers were by far most affected by market disturbances. In France riots were heaviest in cities and in grain exporting regions. This resulted in different forms of protest, from blockades and forced sales to local riots as a result of rumours of speculation. According to Diaz Marin, the pattern in Spain is very similar: a huge wave of short time market riots (mostly lasting one or two days) in the first half of 1847, all instigated by an (expected) rise of grain and bread prices and (presumed) manoeuvres of speculation and export. Unrest was most intense in regions (as Andalucia) with a significant number of workers relying mainly on wage income and where access to relief was very limited. In Prussia, riots were almost exclusively restricted to the long-distance grain exporting regions. Although price rises were as high, market disturbances were much less common in more selfsupplying counties. As Bass suggests, a combination of three sets of causes is necessary to trigger collective social unrest in a period of high bread prices: a) an assumed threat of food deprivation and of uncertainty on the food markets by a large group of market-dependent families, b) strong group formation and ‘horizontal’ communication (on market supply and prices) in the lower (labouring) classes and c) the reaction of the authorities (‘vertical’ information). In other regions, such as South Germany, Flanders and The Netherlands, riots were almost exclusively urban events, mostly directed against the symbols of (perceived) speculation, such as millers, bakers and traders. (Vanhaute, Paping, Ó Grada, »The European subsistence crisis of 1845-1850: a comparative perspective«, p.29)

Market riots triggered by actual or expected shortages and price rises were almost exclusively restricted to regions with commercial, grain-exporting agriculture and to cities. In peasant-based economies with a lower dependency on purchased grain and bread consumption, collective actions were scarce, even in the darkest days of the crisis. Social unrest in peasant economies was mostly limited to small, often individual actions of resistance and law-breaking. (Vanhaute, Paping, Ó Grada, »The European subsistence crisis of 1845-1850: a comparative perspective«, p.29)

Faced with a confidence crisis leading to international and external monetary drains, the Bank of England suspended Peel’s act and thereby was allowed to issue fiat money without being constrained to have full gold backing. Macroeconomists Rudiger Dornbusch and Jacob Frenkel blame the British banking crisis of 1847 on the ‘massive real shock’ of a harvest failure that gave rise to ‘commercial distress and financial panic’. The Bank of Englanddealt with this crisis by suspending the Bank Charter Act of 1844, which prohibited the Bank from issuing banknotes without full gold backing (Berger and Spoerer, 2001; Ward-Perkins, 1950; Dornbusch and Frenkel, 1984).

Bank of England

Founded by William Paterson in 1694

Bank of England was founded by a Scot, William Paterson[4], and the Bank of Scotland was established by an Englishman, a London merchant called John Holland, although many of you probably don’t recognize the names. However, most won’t realize that William Paterson also had a hand in the founding of the Bank of Scotland. The Bank of Scotland came into being in 1696, the year after Paterson returned to his native Scotland and helped to persuade his fellows that there was a need for a bank to support foreign trade. Nevertheless, Paterson is more famous and rightly so, for representing one of the co-founders of what was then a private English bank. Not only was Paterson a co-founder, the canny Scot was the conceiver and proposer of the idea, in 1691, three years before the Bank gained its Royal Charter [5].

William Paterson’s mother was Bethia Paterson [6]; »Bithiah« means “daughter of YAHWEH” in Hebrew [7], as for instance Bethia Strauss, member of Jewish orthodox feminist alliance. On his father’s side, William’s cousin is named Adam Paterson. William was twice married, his second wife was Hannah Kemp; Anne, Hannah’s daughter born in her first marriage, was married to Samuel South.

Christopher Hollis, in his “The Breakdown of Money”, gives some of the details about Paterson and Bank of England (BOE):

»In 1694, the Government of William III [who had come in from Holland with the Jews] was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson [or was he, rather, merely their front?] offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 percent on the condition that ‘the Governor and company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 [that is, double it], lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves. Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make up money. . . In practice, they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or three hundred thousand pounds. By 1696 [i.e., within two years], we find them circulating £1,750,000 worth of notes against a cash reserve of £36,000.” That is, with a “backing” of only about 2 percent of what they issued and drew interest on.«[8]

Mr. A.N. Field, in his »All These Things« (Omni Pubs., 1963, pp. 218-9), makes the following comment on this development:

“Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain, a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the Crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived.”

»The history of the second Jewish settlement in Britain is one long trail of parchment bonds shackling the nation in debt. Every step in the ascent of the Jew in the nation’s affairs has been marked by the increase and multiplication of debt. The culmination was reached when under the Asquith and Lloyd George Ministries, surrounded by the Marconi Scandal Jews, the European War was financed by the fictitious lending of £6,000,000,000 of completely non-existent money. The bare-faced fraud of these proceedings was capped after the war by an audacious contraction of the means of payment, and the consequent wholesale wrecking of British industries and reduction of millions of people to destitution.«

». . . From that time onwards we were simply going to London each year and borrowing more money to pay the interest on what we already owed.”

Quoting from »Which Way, Western Man« by William Gayley Simpson [9], with my emphasis added:

»But there is more to be noted about this “national” Bank of England. To begin with, its name itself was a deliberate misnomer. That is to say, it was a hoax, designed to create in people a confidence, which from the very first it was the bankers’ intention to betray. This so-called “Bank of England” (and likewise the “Bank of Germany,” the Federal Reserve Bank “of the United States,” and all others modeled on the English original) are and always have been private institutions run for the private profit of their stockholders. The respective governments of the nations in which these “national” banks have operated have had virtually no control over them. The policy of each one has always been determined by what amounts to the absolute dictatorship of its own Governor and Board, it makes no public report of its operations or its profits, the list of its stockholders is not open to examination by any outsider, not even by any representative of the national government; and it may include on its Governing Board members who not only were foreign-born but actually still owe their primary allegiance to a foreign government. [10]A Warburg or a Rothschild, sworn citizen of Germany or France, may be members of the Governing Board of the “national” bank in Britain or in the United States. This certainly creates the possibility that the bank, whether it be the Bank of England, our own Federal Reserve, or some other, will be controlled in the interest of the enemies of the country in which it is located.«

As it has been written by many authors, the story about creation of money is the mother of all scams. To begin with by quoting Thomas Jefferson: »No one has natural right to be moneylender save him who has it to lend«. And the would-be money-masters did not have it to lend, or more exactly, they didn’t begin to have as much as they lent. The bald fact is that most of our modern money, issued by a national bank as a debt against a whole people, does not even exist: as Soddy has put it, it “is imagined to exist and lent to borrowers as though it existed, for the purpose of bearing interest.”[11] This has been the case ever since the founding of the Bank of England.

The background of this bank is revealing. In 1292, the Jews were expelled from England, and for almost 400 years were forbidden to set foot on English soil. But under Cromwell, shortly after the execution of King Charles the First in 1649, whose overthrow it would seem they largely financed, they were readmitted, and straightway swarmed in, especially from Holland, to replace Amsterdam with London as the financial capital of the world. In forty years, says Sir Esme Wingfield Stratford in his »History Of British Civilization«, they became the dominant financial power in the land.[12] This brings us to about 1690, and in 1694 came the founding of the “Bank of England.” And in the manifesto addressed to prospective share-holders at that time, it was baldly stated that the Bank was to have the “benefit of all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” [13]

The ostensible purpose of the bank was to lend King William unlimited sums at 8% per annum to enable the prosecution of war, and in particular the conflict

against Louis XIV of France[14]. The bank would thus receive from the crown interest of 100,000 pounds per annum, the additional 4,000 pounds being an administrative fee. The bank also acquired the right to issue 1.2 million in banknotes without any gold cover. Prior to its listing, the bylaws of the bank were carefully scrutinized by Serjeant Levinz in order to ensure that the bank complied with its hidden purpose, to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money and means of exchange out of nothing, at interest. All this fake money was accompanied by compounding interest. Levinz was a Jew from Amsterdam who practiced as an advocate [15].

There was much opposition to the establishment of the bank. Foremost were the goldsmiths and moneylenders, who correctly foresaw that it would bring an end to their usurious racket of fractional reserve banking based on their gold receipts. Landowners and country gentry feared an escalation in interest rates, as the bank would control the nation’s money supply. There were allegations that the bank would favor certain merchants with low rates of interest. The biggest fear was that “the bank would grow too powerful and would become the keystone of the commercial world[16].” Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened, as the Bank of England became the model on which all subsequent central banks were replicated.

At that time the House of Commons had 512 members, consisting of 243 Tories, 241 Whigs and 28 members whose allegiance was unknown [17]. About 2/3 of the members were country gentlemen and it is believed that of the 512 members approximately 20 percent were illiterate. The bill was debated in July 1694, the high point in summer, when most of the rural members were engaged in summer pursuits and the harvesting of their crops [18].

On that fateful Friday, July 27, 1694, when the charter of incorporation was granted, only 42 members were present, all of them Whigs as the Tories opposed the bill. All the Whigs voted for it. The title of the bill made no mention of the proposed Bank of England, which is only described or one might say secreted, two-thirds down in the unintelligible verbiage—to the layman that is—of the bill. The opening sentence of the bill reads as follows:

“William and Mary by the grace of God, King and Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defenders of the faith etc. To all for whom these presents shall come greeting.”

The third sentence, which contains 242 words starts with:

“Whereas in and by a certain Act lately made in Parliament entitled an Act for granting to their majesties several rates and duties upon TONNAGE OF SHIPS AND VESSELS, and upon beer, ale, and other liquors, for securing certain recompenses and advantages in the said Act mentioned, to such persons as shall voluntarily advance the sum of fifteen hundred thousand pounds towards carrying on the war with France it is amongst other things enacted. . . .” [19]

The gist of the first two-thirds of the bill details the necessity to levy a complicated array of new rates, duties and taxes on ships, beer, ale and other liquors. The true purpose of these taxes is that they were needed in order to fund the interest on all future government loans. Shortly thereafter further taxes were introduced including a land tax, paper tax, poll tax, salt tax, stamp tax and window tax, which replaced the hearth or chimney tax. Other taxes initiated were a tax on pedlars, a tax on hackney coaches, a tax on births, marriages and deaths and lastly a tax on bachelors.[20] However, the most punitive tax introduced was an income tax, levied at a rate of 20%. It was applied not only on companies, but laborers too.[21]

Hence a pattern would emerge where unnecessary wars would be embarked upon, which simultaneously increased the national debt and the profits of the usurers. Significantly, many of these wars were started against countries, which had implemented interest-free state banking systems, as was the case in the North American Colonies and France under Napoleon. This pattern of attacking and enforcing the bankers’ system of usury has been deployed widely in the modern era and includes the defeats of Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II and most recently Libya in 2011. These were all countries that had state banking systems, which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equal basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries. Within two years of its establishment in 1696 the Bank of England had 1,750,000 worth of bank notes circulating with a gold reserve of only 2% or 36,000 pounds. On May 1, 1707 the union between Scotland and England was established, motivated in no small way by the necessity to seize control of the royal mint in Edinburgh, which took place in 1709.

By 1720 after the conclusion of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14) the national debt had risen to 30 million pounds with the war itself having cost 50 million pounds.[22]After the American War of Independence (1775-83), which had been fought after the Colonists were forced to replace their debt-free Colonial scrip with English money that resulted in 50% unemployment, the national debt soared to 176 million pounds.

In 1786 Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger tried to abolish the national debt with a sinking fund which generated interest of 1 million pounds per annum to repay the debt.[23] This scheme was soon abandoned by the enormous increase incurred to finance the war against Napoleon. In 1797 in order to pay for the burgeoning interest burden, a system of graduated income tax had to be introduced.

The war against France lasted from 1792 until 1815. Among the principal objectives of this pointless bloodletting was to destroy Napoleon’s debt and interest-free system of finance.

On Jan. 18, 1800 Napoleon established the Banque de France as a state bank. As Napoleon detested the bankers, he made himself not only governor of the bank, but also appointed himself first minister of Treasury. During this period England waged a war against the United States from 1812 until 1814. This war was instigated by England after the United States Congress refused to renew the charter of the foreign-owned Bank of the United States, which had been the central bank of America from 1791 until 1811.[24] By 1815 the national debt had ballooned to 885 million pounds. This completely unnecessary and unwinnable war which resulted in approximately three million military personnel and at least one million civilians losing their lives, cost 831 million pounds 44 of which over 2.5 billion pounds were still outstanding in 1914. The principal of 504 million pounds increased fivefold as a result of compound interest.

Prominent names or leaders of Spring of Nations movement, by nations

The Austrian Empire

In 1848, Austria was considered the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, which had been dissolved by Napoleon in 1806, and was not resurrected by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. German Austrian chancellor Klemens von Metternich had dominated Austrian politics from 1815 until 1848. On March 13, 1848 university students mounted a large street demonstration in Vienna, and it was covered by the press across the German-speaking states. Following the important, but relatively minor demonstrations against Lola Montez in Bavaria on February 9, 1848, the first major revolt of 1848 in German lands occurred in Vienna on March 13, 1848 [25]. There were three alleged major uprisings in February, May and August of 1848, where Emperor Ferdinand and his chief advisor Klemens vonMetternich sent Austrian troops against their own, uprising people. Following his unsuccessful attempt to crush Hungarian revolutionary forces in September 1848, Emperor Ferdinand I first fled Vienna and shortly after abdicted in favour of his nephew Franz Joseph. The Diet of Lower Austria demanded Metternich’s resignation. With no forces rallying to Metternich’s defense, Ferdinand dismissed him. The former chancellor went into exile in London.

Klemens von Metternich, with full name Clemens Wenceslaus Nepomuk Lothar von Metternich as the longtime Austrian Empire’s / Habsburg premier. I really have to lead in with the Wikipedia text, as it is rich in the usage of words:

»One of his first assignments was to engineer a détente with France that included the marriage of Napoleon to the Austrian archduchess Marie Louise. Soon after, he engineered Austria’s entry into the War of the Sixth Coalition on the Allied side, signed the Treaty of Fontainebleau that sent Napoleon into exile, and led the Austrian delegation at the Congress of Vienna that divided post-Napoleonic Europe amongst the major powers. He disliked liberalism and worked to prevent the breakup of the Austrian empire, for example, by crushing nationalist revolts in Austrian north Italy and the German states. At home, he pursued a similar policy, using censorship and a wide ranging spy network to suppress unrest.«

I need to remind all readers about Mathis’ disclosures related to Napoleon and his era.In short words, Napoleon was Jewish and an actor, le plus grand imposteur du monde.

Klemens’ mother is Maria Beatrix Aloysia von Kageneck, Fürstin zu Metternich-Winneburg. Following her maternal line, we can see that her grandmother is Anna Maria Katharina Truchsess Von Wolhausen, who married Johann Heinrich Joachim Truchsess von Wolhausen. Johann himself was a grandson of Hans Jakob Truchsess von Wolhausen on his paternal side, following Johann’s maternal side to his grandmother Maria von Pfirt and then her paternal line for 2 generations back we can find another Jakob, Jakob Reich von Reichenstein, Johann’s 3g-great grandfather. That is quite unusual family tree and names for any German politician, serving as an Austrian Empire’s premier.

Taking a closer look at the Ferdinand I, Emperor of Austria, President of the German Confederation, King of Hungary (as Ferdinand V), and many others, reveals that he was suffering from epilepsy, hydrocephalus, neurological problems, and a speech impediment[26]. Wikipedia says his health issues are consequence of his parents’ genetic closeness (I dare to call it for what it is – inbreeding) . Ferdinand’s father was Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, and Ferdinand’s mother was Maria Teresa of the Two Sicilies. Following Ferdinand’s family three generation back, we can further see that Ferdinand’s father and mother were actually related, as Maria Theresa of Austria, Queen of Hungary & Bohemia, was both Francis II’s paternal grandmother and Maria Teresa of Two Sicilies’ maternal grandmother.

We can learn much more significant fact, than just the inbreeding part of the Habsburgs family tree. Following Maria Teresa of Austria back in time, we can notice that Maria’s paternal grandfather was Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor and his maternal great grandmother was Anna of Bohemia and Hungary also known as ….wait for it…. Anna Jagellonica, Queen of the Romans (Germany), Bohemia and Hungary, as the wife of King Ferdinand I, later Holy Roman Emperor. Her paternal grandparents were King Casimir IV of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania, of the Jagiellon dynasty, and Elisabeth of Austria, one of the heiresses of Bohemia, duchy of Luxembourg and duchy of Kujavia. Miles Mathis hasshowed us that Jagiellon dynasty is Jewish and that the founder of the Jagiellon dynasty was Władysław II Jagiełło, around 1400.

Turning back to Ferinand I, Wikipedia admits [27] his father, before he died:

»drafted a willpromulgating that he [Ferdinand I] consult Archduke Louis on every aspect of internal policy, and urged him to be influenced by Prince Metternich, Austria’s Foreign Minister«.

Oh well, so we have an Emperor of Austria that is actually not an emperor at all. I have already shown some facts about Klemens von Metternich, so for better understanding of actual events we need to look as well at Archduke Louis, Prince Royal of Hungary and Bohemia and Prince of Tuscany, with full name Ludwig Joseph Anton Johann von Habsburg-Lothringen, Erzherzog von Österreich [28]. What we can find at even Wikipedia, is the fact that Archduke Ludwig von Habsburg was Ferdinand I’s uncle, as Archduke Louis and Francis II were brothers, coming from the family connection to their common paternal grandmother Maria Theresa of Austria, Queen of Hungary & Bohemia. If you read closely the above text, it means that even Archduke Louis was descendant of the Jagiellons.

What about Franz Joseph, with full name Franz Joseph I von Habsburg-Lothringen, Ferdinand I’s nephew, who succeeded the throne in 1848? He is as well coming from the Jagiellons on his paternal side, as Franz Joseph’s father was Francis II and we have just connected him to the Jagiellons in the preceeding paragraph. It is interesting to notice a case of inbreeding in Franz Joseph’s family tree and I really find it amazing. Notably, Maria Teresa of Austria and Francis I were parents of both Franz Joseph’s paternal grandfather Leopold II and his maternal grandmother Archduchess Maria Carolina of Austria [29]. It is said that Franz Joseph suffered from assassination of his wife, Elisabeth of Bavaria, Empress of Austria and Queen of Hungary, in 1898. I am really curious what would a decent research into that particular alleged assassination disclose, as I have already deconstructed the fake assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Franz Joseph’s nephew, which was set up in Sarajevo in 1914. To quickly remind you, that fake assassination put in motion the beggining of World War I.

Baden and Palatinate, German confederation states

Another name well worth mentioning in the context of Spring of Nations in 1848i, is that of Ludwig Bamberger. Bamberger was born into the wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish Bamberger family in Mainz and later became a lawyer.

In the course of the advance of the Prussian army in order to crush the uprising revolutionaries, Bamberger fled to Switzerland. As a result, he was sentenced in absentia during 1849 to a prison sentence and in 1852 even to death. But like all spooks, he was coincidentaly lucky enough to evade such punishment and even see its amnesty. In exile in Switzerland, Bamberger first lived in Zurich, later in Geneva and remained in close contact with the other political refugees. From Switzerland, Bamberger traveled to London at the end of 1849 and became an employee in the bank of »Bischoffsheim, Goldschmidt & Cie«, owned by his uncle Bischoffsheim. There he still kept contact with political exiles, which included, among others, Karl Marx, Louis Blanc and Giuseppe Mazzini.

Many of you may have heard of the alleged correspondence between Giuseppe Mazzini and infamous freemason Albert Pike, where the two were discussing sinister plan for 3 subsequent World Wars, use of Islam as the world’s enemy and similar NWO subjects. However, it is a commonly believed fallacy that for a short time, the Pike letter to Mazzini was on display in the British Museum Library in London, and it was copied by William Guy Carr, former Intelligence Officer in the Royal Canadian Navy. The British Library has confirmed in writing to the author of this blog that such a document has never been in their possession. Furthermore, in Carr’s book, Carr includes the following footnote:

»The Keeper of Manuscripts recently informed the author that this letter is NOT catalogued in the British Museum Library. It seems strange that a man of Cardinal Rodriguez’s knowledge should have said that it WAS in 1925«.

It appears that Carr learned about this letter from Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Santiago, Chile, who wrote »The Mystery of Freemasonry Unveiled«. To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written. Nevertheless, the letter is widely quoted and the topic of much discussion.

I would certainly recommend reading the linked article from Encyclopaedia Britannica on Giuseppe Mazzini, as his biography there reads like a thriller. As you were able to read until this point, each new name in this essay opens new doors and connects to deep rabbit holes. Mazzini looks as spooky as they get, but I will leave him for some other time and occasion.

France

The text of the official story of 1848 revolution in France reads like a classic coup d’etát script, with a small twist to the story. One would think that coup d’etát represents any real switch of the ruling power, as in the case of 1848 spring events in France. Looking into pretext story of Spring of nations, we can find in 1830 there was an alleged July Revolution[30], where Charles X was »forced« to abdicate and Louis Phillipe I was throned as the new French king. Charles X was a brother of Louis Stanislas, so-called Louis XVIII. But as we can learn from Miles Mathis in his essay about earlier French revolution of 1789, Louis XVI and Louis XVIII, both named Louis Stanislas, were the same person and the family of D’Orleans was infiltrated by Jewish de’ Medici family. As Louis XVIII died in 1824, the monarchial power and crown were passed to his brother Charles X, who was »forced« after 6 years in 1830 to abdicate and ran to exile. Then Louis Phillipe I was installed, whose maternal 2g-grandmother was Françoise Marie de Bourbon and her paternal grandfather was Louis XII of France, a legitimate son of Henry IV and Marie de’ Medici. Apparently, the switch of power was merely close family members and relatives acting out, handing over the power in order to deceive the naive public as if anything significant actually happened.

As Wikipedia says, the revolutionary events ended the Orleans monarchy of Charles X (1830–1848) and led to the creation of the French Second Republic. That particular political creation was led by none else than Louis Napoléon Bonaparte III, the son of Napoleon I’s brother Louis Bonaparte. Napoleon III was married to Hortense Eugénie Cécile de Beauharnais, a daughter of Napoleon I’s wife Joséphine Tascher de la Pagerie from her first marriage to Alexandre, Vicomte de Beauharnais. The house of Beauharnais is originally known as Leuchtenberg and I think that is not exactly a French nobles’ last name, is it?

Wikipedia further leads:

»Early in 1848, some Orleanist liberals, such as Adolphe Thiers, had turned against him, disappointed by Louis Philippe’s opposition to parliamentarism«.

As soon as you can openly read about the alleged opposition of any kind in Wikipedia entry, it is understandable presumption to expect many contradictions can be found about it. Let’s take a closer look at Adolphe Thiers. Wikipedia says he served as a prime minister in 1836, 1840 and 1848, as second elected President of France and the first President of the French Third Republic. He was obviously a member of political active forces, acting their own game of thrones.

»Most important for his future career, he was introduced to Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, the former foreign minister of Napoleon, who became his political guide and mentor. Under the tutelage of Talleyrand, Thiers became an active member of the circle of opponents of the Bourbon regime, which included the financier Lafitte and the Marquis de Lafayette [31].«

Looking into the family tree of le banquier Jacques Lafitte[32], we can trace it to his maternal grandmother Saubade de Laborde and see that his relatives were marrying into then noble French families, to some barons, generals or duc. That is enough to dismiss Wikipedia’s story of carpenter’s son Jacques Lafitte rise to the role of partner in the major French bank »Perregaux, Laffitte and Company«. Actually, there is a very telling passage at Wikipedia’s entry about Jacques saying:

»Laffitte also took over his place as one of the fifteen regents of the Bank of France. He became president of the Chamber of Commerce of Paris (1810-1811) and was appointed as a judge of the Tribunal of Commerce of the Seine (1813). After the defeat of Napoleon in 1814, he was named provisional governor of the Bank of France by the incoming Bourbon king Louis XVIII. Napoleon, when on his way into final exile after Waterloo (June 15, 1815), reportedly deposited 6 million francs in Laffitte’s bank.«

Apparently, Jacques was serving as regent on the board of Bank of France and as a personal banker of choice to Napoleon. No carpenter’s son can achieve anything like that. Furthermore, we need to remember, that one of the roles of England’s long-lasting war against France, from 1792 until 1815, was to abolish the interest-free debt system still in use under Napoleon.

For Thiers to be in such company of PTB stooges, even working for their goals, suggests he was one of the close ruling circle. Unless you want to believe that premiers and presidents get elected by transparent public process of voting and that revolutions are actually a spontaneous reaction to any political issue.

Those who seek power will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally cause depressions, revolutions, and wars in order to further their desire for more power. This corrupting nature of the very pursuit of power explains why the moral mind of the individual who neither desires power over others nor understands the desire for such power cannot fathom why power-seekers would want to create human misery through wars, depressions, and revolutions. In other words, the conspirators are successful because the moral citizen (you and I) cannot accept the conclusion, that other individuals would actually wish to create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow citizens.

[4] Paterson relocated to Edinburgh, where he was able to convince the Scottish government to undertake the Darién scheme, a failed attempt to found an independent Scottish Empire in what is today Panama. Paterson personally accompanied the disastrous Scottish expedition to Panama in 1698, where his wife and child died and he became seriously ill.

[10] As referenced in »Which Way, Western Man« : See John Hargrave—Montagu Norman [Governor of the Bank of England 1920-44.] Greystone Press, New York, 1942, espec. pp. 107 and 123. For the history of the “Bank of

[18] Similarly the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve bank was voted on December 23, 1913, when there was only a small remnant of members present, the majority having returned home for Christmas. H.S. Kenan, “The Federal Reserve Bank”, Noontide Press, Los Angeles, 1966, 19-20, https://archive.org/details/federalreserveba00kena

[24] In 1836 President Andrew Jackson closed down the Second Bank of the United States by withdrawing all government deposits. It had received its 20-year charter in 1816. The Rothschilds and their associates held 80% of the stock, and the U.S. government the balance.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

24 thoughts on “Spring of Nations – Revolutions of 1848 Revisited”

Very interesting, this unraveling of all the brutal history… The rabbit hole seems dauntingly deep, but it’s nice to read you and our other pals as you dig beyond the hole and expose more of the truth than anyone thought, going in. It’s made history far more interesting, if also more vicious and dark as well. World of Lies.

I’m glad you found it interesting. And yes, the World of Lies seems overwhelming, I really needed to dig deep for this one. It made me realize that there were tens of authors before me, who knew how deep the rabbit holes go. As rewarding as it was to learn a small part of the truth, it made me feel miserable. In some cases, as i.e. BoE, the truth about the money scam is known for more than a century and half, and nothing happened to stop it. I guess we have a long way to go before anything significant happens to change this crazy world into something much more pleasant to bear.

I can certainly understand, Vex, after such a strain of the intellect as this undertaking, that starting afresh with new research seems too much. You need a shot of dopamine. The synapses will recover, and you’ll continue your work, no doubt. I would urge, as if you don’t already know this, that you privately store this research in paper form as well as non-connected digital, as the underlying reality of the Internet era is that the PTB control everything we are allowed to see on our screens and digital storage, by definition, always deteriorate and fails. Public access to your work, and MM’s, could disappear this afternoon.

Great work. If you don’t mind, after our new face is up and running, I will promote it at POM. We have there readers capable of absorbing more than 140 characters at a sitting.

Thanks for your kind words, Mark. I did compose it offline and it’s saved to inaccessible digital copy as well. That’s a good advice to follow even if dealing with ‘ordinary’ subjects, as opposed to loosing it all somewhere in the digital heavens 🙂

Sure thing, I’ll be happy if this text reaches as many people as possible. That’s our, authors’ reward, right?

Finally had a chance to dig in to this prodigious piece of research. Miles is always referring back to the revolutions of ’48 and sort of assumes but never addresses whether these revolutions were authentic or in his vague terms, “Republican.” But it has never been clear to me that those revolutions were authentic. This goes a good way to answering that question, though as you acknowledge there was a lot of heterogeneity in the types of upheavals, and it might have been that some of them were real and spontaneous while others, probably the ones that really appeared to upset the status quo, were manufactured, or if not, then quickly diluted by agents sent in to control the opposition.

I am not so sure about the history we’re given of the rationale for some of the wars discussed in your piece. Is it really true that wars are fought against countries that don’t allow or have a central bank? Well, I mean it seems to be true, but what I mean is: is that the real reason?

If the U.S. colonies were controlled by TPTB and the war of independence a stage-managed affair, then there wasn’t really a war against them, was there? Same goes for France under Napoleon. We are also told that today Iran is one of the last holdouts against the “Rothschild Central Banking Cartel” or whatever, and that is the reason the West has such antagonistic relations with them (or why the west is about to invade). Same with North Korea. But in the case of Iran, I am quite sure it has been a puppet state since at least the early 20th century (that is the topic of my next paper). So then this whole business about the central bank issue being a central issue in antagonism doesn’t jibe.

I can’t say I’ve figured it out, but I sense that there is some misdirection around the issue of central banking. I’m not sure what it is, though. Haven’t been able to put my finger on it. Of course I’m not saying that central banking is bad, I’m just not sure it’s bad for the reasons given to us. I think the issue of debt is certainly key. But countries can go into debt without central banks. It may have to do simply with the ability to control the rate of inflation as the key to controlling the economy at will. But nowadays the value of money is largely determined by the international currency market, isn’t it? In which case, the importance of central banks is quite a bit less than it used to be. And it would therefore follow that whether or not a country has a central bank doesn’t really matter to the money masters, since they can manipulate any currency any way they like. (Which is one of the reasons bitcoin etc. is such a scam.)

Anyway, I don’t know what it is, but I learned a lot from your post and thank you for trying to burn away the darkness around the ’48 revolutions and central banking.

What was the most revealing single fact about the 1848 revolutions I’ve learned, was that any alleged reactionary acts were not fomented by the repressive government. The presence of such would help shape the response of the commoners, but was not the reason for it. That’s quite the opposite of what I was learned in high-school or that Wikipedia says was the main issue of ’48 revolutions. The next issue would be whether any uprisings were actually real or only manufactured by the same forces who fomented the whole “uprising” idea and promoted it throughout Europe. What if none was real and the image of the enemy, created by the newspapers, was enough for anybody to believe some Spring of nations is actually going on? I have shown, that power was switched only on the surface, while in fact it was just PTB playing their own game of thrones. Looking at how easy is to fool people even nowadays, with so much more access to information, I’m leaning towards manufactured reality, rather then any real events and victims. And as if the real profit and victims were not enough, we can for instance learn that Bernard Baruch was head the USA’s War Industries Board, whose function was purchasing munitions for America’s military. After the war, Congress’s Graham Committee conducted an investigation that revealed the public had been defrauded out of billions for war-related items that were unnecessary, or undelivered, or never even produced. Here is an excerpt from the Committee’s report:

“We had 53 contracts for 37-millimeter shells, on which we expended $9,134,592. None of these shells ever reached our firing line. We had 689 contracts for 75-millimeter shells, on which we expended $301,941,459. Of these shells, we fired 6,000. We had 142 contracts for 3-inch shells, on which we expended $44,841,844. None of these shells reached the firing line. We had 439 contracts for 4.7-inch shells, on which we expended $41,716,051. Of these shells 14,000 were fired by our forces. We had 305 contracts for 6-inch shells, on which we expended $24,189,085. None of these shells ever reached the firing line. . . .”

That list is endless, the total sum unimaginable. War is sometimes actually a racket.

I think it’s all about two things: money and power. And usually, the former creates the latter. So it seems rational to believe, that the one who is able to create the money, has ultimate access to power. There is one logical issue that supports the war against any country without central bank – just look at the dates when major European countries established their own CB : Italy – 1883, Germany – Deutsche Bank AG – 1870, Denmark – 1818, although only in 1914 becoming Denmark’s sole banker, France – 1800 although in France there was no single note-issuing institution until 1848, when BoF becomes a monopolist. So, it looks like all 1848 subsequent wars are a prime suspect in an attempt to force nations into central banking model – monopolist private owned bank, granted the right to issue the money against interest and then borrow it to any government. To understand how money gets actually created, debt is its essence. And fractional banking system, imposed on us by the very first central bank, Bank of England, is the best possible solution to create enormous of money without any real value, except for trust that it actually bears any value. Imagine you had the option to print any amount of paper money and lend it to any government at some interest rate. You would be receiving interests on some sum, that was not yours to lend in the first place. By printing the new bank-notes, one creates money out of nothing, just like some bankers already testified themselves. So, is there actually any reason to refute the fact, that a) there is a strong interest to enslave the nation by acquiring monopoly on money issuing right by introduction of privately owned central bank, even using force and b) do it by force / war intentionally, since wars are the best option to further inflate the debt.

For the sole purpose of creating unthinkable amounts of profit, I want to believe some wars are as real as you and me, along with all the victims. If both England and US colonies created few billion pounds or dollars worth of profit from the war industry business, while further creating billions in interest on borrowed money, created out of nothing, to finance such war, then there’s a very strong interest to foment such war. That is, they manufacture a reason to attack another country under some false pretense, real people get killed, while everything is already agreed upon in advance by the very same organizers on both sides. Who cares if millions of people are killed in the process of making billions of profit? You and me, the people alike? Sure we do care, but that doesn’t seem to stop the PTB from creating new wars as we speak, does it? If you think, it was so much easier to fool people 170 years ago, and it still seems to work like a charm. We, the people who suffer as potential victims and soldiers, sure do perceive such wars as real, while in fact we’re just manipulated into the fight. Divide et impera, ad infinitum.

Central bank is essential to enslave the country by using the fractional banking system, which was not a standard by default. And I still want to believe, that huge amounts of profit do motivate the PTB enough to install such system in every single country. The ultimate power is another motive. Why would they suddenly stop until we are all financially conquered? England was the first banking victim and there is no doubt about it, so some country will have to be their last victim. Why not Iran or N. Korea, actually? Who says the process already stopped? Until somebody proves me wrong, I will assume it’s still an ongoing process and we’re watching it unfold.

You say countries can go into debts without central banks. Just how? If there is an individual ruler, for instance a king, he could go into debt personally. But then the king is not a nation, and I want to believe that was the leading idea behind the central bank – to have the people of one nation vouch for the debt, created by its government.

So what is a currency exchange rate or market, actually? In the monetary approach theory, the exchange rate for any two currencies is determined by relative money demand and money supply between the two countries. And who controls relative money demand and supply, if there is monopolistic, privately owned issuer of one nation’s currency? That’s how easy is to create an artificial system in inter-exchangeable currencies – and it all bases on trust. Inflation? A true phenomenon, an economic idea, allegedly noticeable in growing prices. Is higher price an evidence of inflation or money value depreciation? Can a simple idea of alleged currency’s depreciation only give reason to raise the fundamental prices and give such raise a perfect disguise? Well, it seems the economists themselves are confused about it, as it’s an endless scientific dilemma.

I think a great deal of the “endless scientific dilemma” is just misdirection, to be honest. I’m not sure if any of you have read Daniel Quinn’s “Ishmael” books, but he talks a lot about our culture, the monoculture of Totalitarian Agriculture going back to the Fertile Crescent. It’s all about the hoarding and lording of food. Fast-forward to today, and it’s the same thing. Money is food-currency, since nothing else sustains life but food and water. At its root, anything of value is only of value if it can be traded for food or water.

So the ultra-rich ruling Powers That Be are no different really than they were thousands of years ago. It’s the same story, with the same devastating results: massive overpopulation, and more on the horizon. Sure, rates change slightly now and again, but we’re still doubling our population every 35 years on average. Given that math, by the year 3000 humanity will have achieved a locusthood of some 2 billion BILLION people, and assuming we can ever colonize other planets, we will swarm every habitable planet in the universe by then, some 135 milion worlds if we postulate that 15B is a max population per planet. Yes, that’s a worst-case scenario. And no, I don’t believe we’ll be colonizing any planets any time soon (due to the failures of physics Miles addresses, among other reasons). But that’s the simple math.

So, given the above Ishmaelian logic holds, we can see by the math alone that TPB not only choose to be brutal and murderous when possible with endless war, but they likely believe they HAVE to kill as many people as possible, since nature can’t keep up anymore. But nature can’t keep up precisely because they hoard and lord the food. It’s a circular mess.

Thanks for your thoughts, Jared. I was only referring to dilemma about the term of inflation, where the true misdirection is just about the official interpretation of inflation – creation of money is not the cause for inflation per se. So how does it get invented and incorporated into the money scheme? Is it possible that it’s all about the mathematical abra-cadabra, an invention to “prove” some narrative, just like in physics or chemistry? After learning about the true physics from Mathis, I do believe economy and its mathematics are in the same basket – seriously fudged and in need for a complete revision. Until he or somebody else shows where all the scientific fudges are and exposes them for what they are, inflation will remain debated as an economic phenomenon, although it’s most probably nothing more then another PTB’s tool to depreciate the value of everything still owned by the rest of people.

I’ve never read Quinn’s book, the subject seems interesting to me. There is couple of things to mention though, that sound as assumptions. For instance, the number of all people and the overall sustainability of a large population on Earth. I would agree we can’t sustain growth of population ad infinitum with the Earth’s limited resources, as we would eventually run out of the living space, food, water, etc… I just doubt that a) there is 7 billion of us at this moment and b) 15 billion is the top value of growth and sustainability. Given our technological development, Quinn doesn’t seem to integrate it into his assumption. As well, the population seems to grow with the progress of food producing capabilities, or we’d have starved out and died to the more sustainable number in the process. It was actually happening, I believe, where we’ve hit the limit – bad crop harvests would decimate the population to more sustainable levels. But we have progressed since then, with modern indoor, hydroponic crops grown under the lights, in completely controlled environment, we can already bypass all nature’s catastrophes in food production chain. So it’s only the matter of upgrading such food production process to feed us on the largest scale, as for instance Netherlands perfectly shows can be achieved. They are producing surplus in food indoors, so we can all achieve the same, right? In short, I don’t believe we have the limit at 15 billion people inhabiting this Earth.

We’re treating our Mother Earth so bad, that I think she will spit us out one fine day. We’re creating so much pollution and it doesn’t seem anybody cares too much about it as it still doesn’t affect our way of life too much. When it happens, many things will change for sure, along with proportional decrease in human population. Let’s not forget how hostile our planet actually is in the long run -with all natural catastrophes, ice ages, meteorites bombarding us every now&then, large volcanoes, etc – we really need a redundant habitat in order to survive as a specie.

The argument of PTB’s efforts to “kill as many as they eventually can” is pretty thin, to allow proper population control. There is an estimate of total number of people killed in all the wars and dictatorships during the 20th century, which was the bloodiest in our human history – and the total body-count comes to about 250-300 million. Percentage-wise, that would be roughly (300/6500) 4,6% of the entire population killed in 100 years according to the official count. If the population actually doubles every 35 years, the number of 300 million victimized is not enough to prevent growth of the same population and sustain it at desired level.

Thanks for taking the time, Vexman. I always appreciate your responses and insight.

“Ishmael” is a story about a fictional sentient gorilla who communicates his thoughts directly to the main character(s) in the story. There are three books where three people meet the ape in various circumstances, and he begins a series of various dialogues about Our Story. Any mistakes or discrepancies in my description or presentation of his work are purely mine, for he covers the topics you asked about considerably, but I won’t get into that here. Hopefully you have time to read his three books. I’d gladly send you mine to read if you liked.

How this fits in with OUR research is that Our Story is pretty much bullshit, the way we were taught the world is and how humanity fits into it. We’re taught that the world is ours, as the only sentient beings, basically. It’s highly biblical, even if not religious. We’re taught in our culture in all ways that WE are the masters of the planet, and it exists for us, basically. Not directly taught, but that’s the story. I highly recommend all three books, although I don’t agree with everything Daniel Quinn writes by a long shot. But he’s pretty amazing and revolutionary in his own way.

As for the math, I posited that 15B people would be a nice round “maximum” as a matter of comfort, if we also postulate that there are half that many people on the Earth right now. In Asimov’s work, he posits that Trantor (the capital planet of the galactic empire) sustains 40B people. Of course that’s possible. I was just demonstrating the math as a worst-case scenario in the way Ishmael does, in the third book. But we can assume that 2 quintillion people would NOT be sustainable, I think.

The current progress of humanity has been to cover the Earth in concrete. Fill every place with money-making producers. Siphon the products and money up through various governments to TPB as efficiently as possible. I’m no hippy, mind you, and embrace various technologies readily. But I find humanity’s progress to not really be very progressive at all.

Which ties us into your comments on the economics currently in play. The US is now some $20 trillion in debt to the banks, allegedly. Mathis has proposed (and I agree) that all taxes go to this debt or the military, and all social programs are paid for by borrowing even further, at interest, increasing the debt. The banks get paid first, basically. Earlier you asked how a nation without a central bank could be in debt, and I assume that it could only happen if that nation was interacting with other nations and owed them for services of some sort. But if all nations (except Iran, North Korea, etc.) owe the same banks AND each other, the banks stand to increase their profits even further since they will generally want to get paid first. Or, at least get paid on the interest first.

I hope I’m following your logic well, and I agree that TPB would appear to be failing to control the population growth if we look at it from that perspective. But what I’m getting at is that in many situations they simply have no reason to care about HOW many people might die. Be it a major war or a minor, or a major (fake?) event or a minor. Sure, they can’t put a dent in the population and still maintain the profits they do if they were to work on the order of the Bubonic Plague or something, but it seems to me that we are all very, very expendable. I agree that it’s not enough to prevent the growth that their Hoarding and Lording of food have created. But it seems like they would not balk at killing millions to suit their agendas, and that’s what we have seen. They can’t kill all the slaves or there would be no production. But they can kill as many as they want, so long as profits keep soaring, with apparently no shame or regret.

There are no 7 billion people on this “planet”. Have you counted them? Look at the numbers from the middle ages. Exponential growth my behind. Yes we are more, but that number is exaggerated. Do you think the TPTB fake almost everything but give you real numbers to work with?
Also, there is no getting off this “planet”. TPTB would have long gone and left us alone, if it were possible. Too bad that almost everybody’s critical thinking skills shut down when it comes to the question of the Earth’s shape and therefore its landmasses. On a spherical Earth everything is already discovered, on a non-spherical not so much. Oh I forgot, their mathematics (aka false science) has proven it, right? If you just look at the facts and use logic a non-spherical Earth makes a lot of sense. Or do you believe everything was created out of nothing and your ancestors were rocks? Excuse my harsh tone, but I hope this way you will not immediately deny it without having looked into it and provide real facts on why a non-spehrical Earth is not possible. Do you fear the consequences? Your brain is fast at calculating the results of this new world view. It basically means no space, no space travel, no alien lifeform “out there”, maybe God does exist, eternal life on this plane without “t” ( get it? PLANE(T)) and many more things. If you consider yourself a truth-seeker, I dare you also look into this. I came looking for truth and didn’t know where it would lead me. I had no idea of what to expect and it was hard to let go of false believes in the beginning because the ppl around me are living in that fake world. Only their world is fantasy and has no foundation. I had to rebuild my own and it is quite solid now. I can live with it and I know it will not crumble tomorrow. And all the other fakery fits right into it. As a final sentence I may add this: Couldn’t it be that since we are all stuck here on this plane and TPTB can’t leave and have to live with us, that in order to stay above us (aka rule us) they had to reinvent reality for us? I offer you a simple logical explanation as for why TPTB do the things they do without having to resort to anything fancy. Please prove me wrong.

Awww, look guys. How cute! Tom thinks the Earth is flat. Isn’t he adorable? Now, I don’t know about my ancestors being rocks, but I definitely believe Tom’s were rocks. Or at least dumb as rocks.

I love how Flat Earth shills like to tell us that TPTB (usually freemasons) tricked us into believing the Earth is round in order to make us forget how special we are. “Tom” here is doing the same thing more or less by asking us if we really believe were made out of rocks and hinting at the possible virtues of a FE, even hinting that it could be a sign that God exists.

But Flat Earth shills have to continually invent new and ever more elaborate theories in order to explain all of the different things that have been pointed out as disconfirming evidence of FE. There have been so many that FE theory at this point resembles a jerry-rigged Rube Goldberg contraption.

This really blows up the whole logic behind why the Flat Earth has been hidden from us, according to them. If the Earth is flat, it means human beings are special. We’re at the center of the universe. And yet, somehow, this Flat Earth was constructed in an extremely elaborate manner so that it would be wholly consistent with the theory that we live on a spinning globe. So let’s say you believe that God created the Flat Earth. Well that means that God created it purposely to make it seem as if it’s a spinning globe. That means it’s part of God’s plan. Why would he do that to us? If we’re so significant and so much at the center of the universe, then why wouldn’t God create the flat earth in a way that is transparently flat. Is he in cahoots with the Masons?

Of course the typical reply to this is to say that there is lots of evidence for a flat earth. No. There. Isn’t. I have looked at the “evidence.” It consists of things that only a very credulous, poorly educated person could be tricked into believing. The “evidence” that is presented is simply misunderstood and misconstrued by FE’ers. Anybody can do the experiment done thousands of years ago by Eratosthenes:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference

Anyway, I suggest that nobody else here spend even a moment responding to “Tom.” That would allow him to get at least one thing he desires: to waste our time with this nonsense. As for me, I will not respond further to him. Here I mostly copy-pasted here from previous comments, so I only wasted a couple of minutes responding to Tom, who I hope will now crawl back under the rock he and his ancestors came from.

Sure Jared, of course. I have to say that I’m not sure TPTB are so clueless on this matter. I think a careful reading of Miles’s physics papers, especially the ones he published since, say, 2010, lead one to strongly suspect that physics has been mislead on purpose. For example in his paper on Decoding Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. There he says that he doesn’t think the occult societies (or TPTB) have a clear understanding of real physics or how to control charge, calling Newton out specifically by name. But they may still be hiding what they do know. In other papers he makes it much clearer that he things they are misleading on purpose. See for example the Kavli prize paper but also some that are more directly scienc-y. More recently he speculated that they may have developed some kinds of aerial transportation that are much better and faster than airplanes. (This is the origin of UFOs in my opinion). I think you would have to have a pretty good understanding of the charge field in order to do something like that.

Well, if they’re hiding something from us and engaged in a massive and highly effective effort to misdirect multiple scientific fields, then the question is: what knowledge are they hiding? I think they are hiding a pretty sophisticated understanding of the charge field. If one views current scientific thinking not simply as a result of stupidity but as a result of a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive, then I think we have to admit that they (or their henchmen) are in fact surprisingly sophisticated, in as much as you’d have to be if you were going to come up with an alternative to real physics that some really smart people cling to and view as real physics. Did Newton really not notice his mistakes, or was the writing accredited to him simply a way to send people on a wild goose chase down the wrong path?

I would encourage anyone with an interest to go take a look at childhood pictures of Einstein or early pictures of Niels Bohr (especially with his fiancée or at his wedding). There are lots of faked pictures in early 20th century science, and so we have to wonder how much these geniuses were simply set up to be the public face of science and the key figures tasked with taking science in the wrong direction.

I agree entirely with your thoughts on this topic. Physics has taken a nasty turn PUBLICLY for precisely these reasons. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, then forward to Feynman and then forward even more to the extreme fakes such as Tyson or Hawking. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they’d chose a (fake, imposter) disabled guy to front modern physics. They’re basically outing themselves in plain sight – saying that you have to be retarded to do modern physics, kinda thing. It’s upside-down. I see it constantly from every direction, in all aspects of the public face of science.

For example, in not one but two instances this very week, friends of mine shared science posts on Facebook from two different sites, one of a collection of 2,000+ photos released “by NASA” of Mars, and another of the recent Juno flybys of Jupiter. Both articles were headered by fake, really bad CGI images. I know they’re fake immediately because I use the same program (Maya) to do my work, and the header pictures were really bad. The Mars header image showed water at the north pole of Mars for crying out loud, and was rendered using Terragen, which is about 15-year old CGI tech. The Jupiter header was of a POV INSIDE the Jovian atmosphere, allegedly, and done using really low-res fluid dynamics in Maya or Houdini. They were both extremely fake.

So of course me being me, I commented on the friends’ posts, “You know this is just CGI, right?” They immediately got upset, asking me why I would say that or how could I know that or why would I think I know more about space than NASA. I of course countered with simple examples, showing how I could to the same image in mere minutes, not even hours, using modern CGI tech. They continued to deny my assertion and that’s fine, I don’t really care what other, unintelligent people believe or don’t believe.

But then it gets worse. Like I said, I was commenting on the HEADER images of those articles, the picture that appears in the Facebook post. Taking the links, it turns out ALL the other images (which are presented by NASA as real photos) were also fake, especially the Jupiter images. They’re images based on extrapolation of the data that for example Juno sampled in its multiple fly-bys, and in most cases aren’t even intended to be presented as actual photos. But the articles never disclaim that, and the Facebook posters don’t even know that. Here’s an example of one of those Juno images:

It’s not just a false-color image, it’s a completely point-cloud data-generated image. One will say that it’s based on reality since the data was real, and that’s fine. But it’s not a PHOTO of Jupiter at all. It’s CGI. How is it that NASA simply can’t post actual photos of fucking Jupiter, in 2017? How is it that Juno doesn’t even have a decent digital camera on it? They say Juno is being demolished by Jupiter’s EM field, they admit it, and as it gets closer on each pass it’s being degraded more and more. So that’s the excuse they give for no actual photos. But my guess would be it’s still taking actual photos, and that TPTB simply aren’t releasing them because either they’re too boring or they show that Jupiter is not what they say it is, that it’s all kinds of charged up and releasing so much energy you couldn’t possibly get that close and survive as a human. Not sure why they would hide what should be widely known, but there we have it.

I find it interesting that the spherical law of sines was discovered before the plane law of sines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_sines . In other comments I mentioned that I have a problem with chronology but I don’t see a problem in this case. since I believe the era after 10th century is mostly correct (much better after 1400’s). Why did the Islamic world care about spherical geometry since history usually portrays them as practical people interested in trade (spices, myrrh, ivory etc)?
People can also study the method of Aristarchus of Samos, who calculated the distance from Earth to the Sun , using the distance from Earth to Moon as unit. He calculated that the distance from Earth to the Sun is 18 to 20 times bigger than the distance between Earth and the Moon. Even if Aristarchus never existed, was his method wrong. His approximations of angles was wrong, so he got a smaller distance (20 times bigger vs the actual 400 times bigger).
People can also study Hipparchus of Nicaea. If you want to know more about Greek astronomy, you can buy the book “Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient Copernicus” by Sir Thomas Heath. The first 300 pages of the book go though the history of Greek Astronomy starting from Homer And Hesiod until the time of Aristarchus. You can study the methods and the calculations presented. The methods and the calculations are one problem while the historicity of these characters is another problem. Both problems are very interesting, and people interested in science and hoaxes should study both.

Who said anything about “exponential growth”? What’s the exponent? Multiplying by 2 isn’t exponential growth at all. As Mathis has pointed out with alleged top-shelf physicists like Hawking, you can’t even handle simple math in your first paragraph.

The rest of your post is just drivel, but I will answer that the reason TPB and the ultra-rich haven’t left the planet is because they suck at physics, not because it’s not possible. As Mathis has shown in hundreds of papers, having money doesn’t mean having power. They don’t have the power to solve problems, and they cannot buy solid physics with money because solid physics only require solid thinking and solid, rigorous approaches to ideas. Money doesn’t buy that kind of progress any more than money buys the cure for cancer. These guys can’t even get Pi right with BILLIONS in funding, so we should have no reasonable expectation that they would get anything else right. This includes fakes like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and everyone at NASA or the NSF.

Don’t be so sure that they don’t know physics, math or science in general. They don’t promote more correct theories because they don’t want Johnny the engineer that works in his garage to make technological innovations. If you have bad theories you must experiment in a more blind manner until you achieve a breakthrough. So you need more money for equipment and hours lost doing bad experimentation. It would be much better for Johnny to work for a big corporation that has more resources. In the big corporations they probably use compartmentalization so the average lower level researcher doesn’t have the big picture.
Mathis actually said that they may use more advanced aircraft. Nothing too science fiction, but more advanced or efficient nonetheless. Of course a lot of technology can advance without the need of a very good theoretical basis. You can do it by trial and error over a longer period.

I want to know if people here have an opinion about quantum computers. Some things look dubious, like the D-Wave company that has ties to In-Q-Tel and other corporations. I think that there are even more main stream doubts about quantum computers.
Even AI has bullshit elements. I believe they will achieve a pseudo-AI, using databases collected by Amazon, Google, Alibaba and the internet in general. Of course this is a big discussion since we fist must define intelligence, or even ask ourselves if it is even possible to define intelligence (maybe is is a transcendental concept). Nonetheless I believe that they will achieve something very practical that it will be used to control the smart grids that are implemented everywhere. After all these people seem to be Borg like , so they will probably have a Borg AI.

Hey Josh,
Tell me about the 6 million ppl that vanished in the holohoax. You are here for the truth, aren’t you?
I didn’t say Flat Earth, but non-spherical. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.
Besides, 7 billion ppl still live here right? Please tell us about the magical 7 in Judaism. And do you have a recommendation where I can get a good translation of the talmud? As a goy and truth seeker I’d really appreciate if you could contribute to world peace that way. You aren’t offended, are you? After all we are all here to find out the truth!
Ps. I assume that you agree that the Nazis were fake right?

Learn some manners and decency, Tom. Until you do, I’m temporarily disabling the possibility of your non-contributions to this blog.

As a general recommendation to all other readers – DO NOT ENTER INTO THE FLAT OR NON-SPHERICAL EARTH DISCUSSION ON THIS BLOG. Please use countless other venues where you can openly discuss it. I find it as ultimate non-sense and don’t wish to read about it here.

So you are saying the jews running the show are smart enough to enslave us all, fake our history and control our life’s and direct our education. But somehow they can’t do science? They present you with fake CGI images of your world, created the computer and can’t do mathematics? Are you kidding me? Who are you fooling?

Tom, you already demonstrated to us that YOU cannot do math, by confusing a doubling with “exponential growth”, and attempting to put words into my mouth. And if you didn’t mean “Flat Earth”, what else could you have meant? Of course it’s an oblated spheroid in shape, not an actual sphere.

Nobody said anything about millions of people vanishing in the Holocaust. A corpse isn’t a vanishment. If you refute those numbers, that’s a different thing, but to state that anyone here said that the “vanished” is again putting words in our mouths, and again false. Nobody said that.

The 7.581 billion comes from the mainstream calculations directly. If that’s untrue, fine, but show us the errors instead of just claiming them. We have (reported) 123 million births this year and only 51 billion deaths so far, and thus the math I presented about a rough doubling is easily justified. I was even erring on the side of caution. They could be off by 20 million births and the math I presented would still hold, and again, nothing exponential about it. No power growths involved.

I’m with Josh on this one now. You don’t deserve any further responses here.

Vexman, if you want to study the origins of the European dynasties, the book “The God-Kings of Europe: The Descendants of Jesus Traced Through the Odonic and Davidic Dynasties” by Hugh Montgomery should be very useful. The author is from an important families and he actually mentions in his book that he knows elite people even from Georgia. On the back cover of one of his books you see a review by Princess Elisabeth of Yugoslavia tat ends like this “So much have been covered up by the people in power who, for reasons of control, preferred docile acceptance of facts to conscious excavating” (very interesting words from a princess). My point is that you should expect big misdirections. The biggest misdirection is probably the fact that these cousins were in conflict. He has another book about England and the invasion of 1066 where he points out that all the people involved are cousins, but at the same time he wants us to believe that the Catholic Church brainwashed one of the cousins to fight his other cousins. Ralph Ellis is another interesting author from England that has similar misdirections. Lets not forget that the Popes and catholic bishops were from the same important families like Medici, Gonzaga, Orsini, Colnna etc. Of course Mathis covered some of these dynasties in a more logical way. Nonetheless Montgomery and Ellis can also be very useful.